[2009] KEHC 295 (KLR)
The court found that the Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a claim relating to ownership of registered land. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act restricts the tribunal's jurisdiction to specific land disputes, excluding ownership of registered land. As...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: James Owino Akumu; Applicant: John Odhiambo Leo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 21 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Ownership Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
James Owino Akumu
Interested Party
John Odhiambo Leo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the proceedings before the Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal concerning the suit land should be quashed by certiorari.
- 3 Whether an order of prohibition should issue to restrain the tribunal from dealing with ownership issues of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a claim relating to ownership of registered land. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act restricts the tribunal's jurisdiction to specific land disputes, excluding ownership of registered land. As the applicant was the registered proprietor, any claim to ownership must be pursued in the High Court, not before the tribunal. The proceedings before the tribunal were therefore a nullity, warranting the grant of certiorari to quash them and prohibition to restrain the tribunal from further dealing with the matter.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the proceedings of the Uriri Land Disputes Tribunal in Land Dispute Case No. 00ll of 2007.
- An order of prohibition is issued restraining the respondent or any other tribunal from hearing, further hearing, deliberating or otherwise dealing with issues pertaining to ownership of KANYAMKAGO/KAWERE I/1815.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2008
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY JOHN
ODHIAMBO LEO FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW(CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT,
NO. 18 OF 1990
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
(URIRI DIVISION)
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC ……………………….…………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
URIRI LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ………… RESPONDENT
AND
JAMES OWINO AKUMU ……………….. INTERESTED PARTY
AND
EX-PARTE
JOHN ODHIAMBO LEO
RULING
This application was not opposed, despite the fact that the respondent and the interested party were duly served. The interested party instructed M/s Omoya & Company Advocates who filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocates on 29th August, 2008. However, no affidavit was filed in reply to the ex-parte applicant’s affidavit.
The application is for an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the proceedings of the respondent emanating from Land Dispute Case No. 00ll of 2007 concerning the ex-parte applicant’s land known as KANYAMKAGO/KAWERE I/1815 hereinafter referred to as “the suit land.”
The application also seeks an order of prohibition to prohibit the respondent and/or such other tribunal from hearing, further hearing, deliberating and/or in any other way dealing with issues pertaining to ownership of the suit land.
The ex parte applicant was registered as the proprietor of the suit land on 7th June, 2005 and thereafter issued with a title deed. In 2007 the interested party filed the aforesaid land suit before the respondent claiming that he is the owner of the land or a share thereof.
The respondent has commenced proceedings with a view to determining the issue of ownership of the suit land.
The respondent does not have jurisdiction to hear such kind of a claim. See WAMWEA –VRS- CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MURANGA REGISTERED TRUSTEES [2003] KLR 389. Its jurisdiction is clearly defined under section 3 (I) of the Land Disputes tribunals Act.
If the interested party believes that he has a valid claim over the suit land or any portion thereof, he should file the same in the High Court of Kenya. The proceedings before the said tribunal are a nullity.
I allow this application. The interested party shall bear the costs of the application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.
16/12/2009
Before D. Musinga, J.
Mobisa – cc
Mr. Ochwangi for the applicant
N/A for the respondents
Court: Ruling delivered in open court on 16th December, 2009.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.